Their point is that no one has bred a strain that can go to full smokable harvest without going over. You HAVE to harvest early.
Right, but I donāt think I agreeā¦ Our Otto II Stout wasnāt harvested 2 weeks early this last year and it was compliant.
And again, the CBG strains I have seen out there are like 0.1% total T and I donāt think that was all harvested 2 weeks early.
OregonCBD CBG genetics were selected, not modified.
GMO isnāt inherently bad, itās how you use it thatās the problem.
Gmo has been happening in nature for years. Genetic Engineering (GE) is what the real issue.
Certain things definitely need to remain in the lab until proven safe. The unknowns are a reasonable threat. I remember my biochem professor giving us the ethics/morals/values discussion of GMOs and the free transmission of information regarding a certain strain of influenza that was previously only spread through direct contact. The group researching it figured out how to make it airborne and more virulent, an obvious superweapon terrorists could use if they were to ever get their hands on that genetic sequence and replicate the organism. They ended up keeping the information confidential.
It can all be scary shit, but it can also be extremely useful in other cases. Iām definitely not advocating for focusing our efforts on weaponizing GMOs or anything on that end of the spectrum, but more information is always better. It would be nice to at least look into modifying individual genes in cannabis, and once found to be safe, allow the public to vote with their dollars and make their own informed decisions. It is all in who holds the power and how they use it.
With the help of Elon Muskās non reflective satellite network, Starlink.
Never said OregonCBD Seeds were GMO.
Iām saying that the term GMO has been around for decades to describe the genetic NATURAL modification for adaptation. Forcing something to change and allowing it to happen naturally are two separate identities.
And yes, turning off (forcing) a gene to mutate is a form of GMO that inherently causes damage in other places. And thatās what some of the issues are with being ānot good for youā. So, turning off a natural enzymatic antagonist is not going to be good because itās going to cause unnatural mutations down the line. But, if itās a natural mutation due to adaptation, itās for the structured selectivity of existence and that plants ability to maintain existence. Prime exampleā¦ ruderalis or āauto-flowersā.
A natural occurring polyploid is fine and happens often in plants. But we took it a step further and tetraploids are being pushed now causing 2 chromosomes to split to 8 to increase production. Thatās not a good thingā¦
An interesting article talking about the enzymatic pathways for the synthase of conversion.
Not the DNA but I believe you mean the RNAā¦
And a gene editing technique can be naturally occurring.
Thatās what Iām getting at. The phrase āgenetically modified organismā is not a ābad wordā. Most just donāt understand that itās also naturally occurring as well.
Growing in hydro or a container will produce a hemp plant that makes about 60% of its cbd potential, but also makes almost zero thc. My T1 that tested .3 total in soil tested at 0.0% thc when grown in hydro. The smokeable flower market will still exist, and plus most buyers want indoor grown flower anyway.
Seed companies like to pretend that they can tell you the exact percentage of cbd and thc in their genetics, but the real truth is that there is a big variance based upon the plantās environment.
Iām wonder if the heavy metals in the farmers soil from the use of phosphate based fertilizers from previous grows has anything to do with it?
If you want more THC, stress a plant out. I have noticed in sample testing that biomass given to us with no heavy metals had much lower THC (if not just straight compliant in flower before taken to crude and filtered) then ones that contained heavy metals.
Especially lead, cadmium, and chromium which are all oxidizers.
Altitude has been suggested to have an impact on THC production relating to UV exposure.
I guess Iām confused
Selection ā Genetic Engineering, right?
100% correct.
Thatās why the strains that grow in the mountains of Afghanistan have always been higher THC.
Thinner pollution so more UV and more pure oxygen enriched soil
Noā¦
I was using an example in the article I posted. I just never posted the article with the original comment. I posted it in the rebuttal.
My badš¤·š»āāļø
I agree with altitude impacting cannabinoid levels, but maybe not in a way that would help the 0.3% situation. Trichomes are, after all, a defense mechanism for predation, a metabolite garbage dump for plants, temperature regulators, and a UV shield. Higher altitude = less UV protection from the atmosphere = more metabolites or trichomes per area. Iāve experimented with ~270W UV bulbs during late week 3 (critical trichome formation period for those particular plants) and definitely saw increased THC percentage in a side by side grow. Varieties without the UV had about 1/4 less THC than those in the UV side and the THC:CBD ratio remained very similar.
Thatās what I was getting at. Just the overall atmosphere impacting cannabinoid and terpenoid expression outcomes.
We built a light moving UVB bar that swept half our canopy using tanning bulbs.
The half that were hit gained upwards of 3% more overall cannabinoid count compared to the ones that didnāt get it.
That is really interesting. I was going to say that if uv made thc, then it would be part of indoor growing, someone would be doing it. With breeders chasing the highest thc percentage, it would seem like your idea could create a flower product with higher percentage thc than what is currently on dispensary shelves.